All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. – Friedrich Nietzsche
Interpretation lies at the heart of human understanding, shaping how societies construct meaning from events, ideas, and phenomena. Yet history reveals a persistent tension: while those in power may dictate interpretation, molding dominant narratives to serve their interests, truth itself remains unyielding. This dynamic—between interpretation shaped by authority and truth immutable in its essence—underscores the fragile nature of orthodoxy built on human constructs. Truth merely waits for the right circumstances to emerge and dismantle falsehood, exposing the fragility of narratives built on power rather than substance.
The history of Sunni Islam offers a compelling lens through which to explore this tension. With its emphasis on Hadith and Sunnah, Sunni orthodoxy rose to dominate the Muslim world, embedding its interpretations into the collective memory of Islamic belief. Yet this process was far from organic. As Ibn Khaldun observed in The Muqaddimah, “The common people follow the religion of the ruler,” reflecting how authority molds collective beliefs to align with its interests. Over centuries, interpretations crafted by political and religious authorities became entrenched as unassailable truths, silencing dissent and obscuring alternative perspectives.
The Role of Orthodoxy and Power
Orthodoxy, from the Greek orthos (correct) and doxa (opinion or belief), implies a standard of correctness—a definitive way of thinking that commands allegiance. Yet, orthodoxy is far from static; it shifts with the tides of power, with rulers, ideologues, and institutions shaping its boundaries. This malleability raises the unsettling question: can something mutable truly reflect eternal truth? The very etymology of orthodoxy suggests alignment with a singular, accepted opinion—a construct that often clashes with the pluralistic and evolving nature of human interpretation.
This dynamic tension is vividly illustrated in the history of the Islamic Golden Age, a period when intellectual pluralism flourished. During its apex under the Abbasid Caliphate, the Islamic world thrived on a diversity of thought. Rulers like Harun al-Rashid and al-Ma’mun championed an environment where debate flourished, inviting scholars from varied religious and cultural backgrounds to the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad. Here, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian thinkers engaged with Greek philosophy, Indian mathematics, and Persian literature. The Mu‘tazilites, a rationalist theological school, were among the key participants in this intellectual blossoming. They advocated for a dynamic understanding of faith, where reason and interpretation were vital tools for uncovering divine principles.
Kalam: Reason vs. Sunni Dogma
The intellectual pluralism of the Islamic Golden Age found one of its richest expressions in the discipline of Kalam, or Islamic scholastic theology. Rooted in the pursuit of understanding divine principles through reason and debate, Kalam provided a structured framework for addressing complex questions about faith, free will, and the nature of God. The Mu‘tazilites, its most prominent practitioners, posited that human reason was a gift meant to be used in interpreting divine law. They sought to reconcile Quranic verses with philosophical inquiry, inviting both admiration and controversy.
Traditionalists like Ahmad ibn Hanbal opposed this intellectual approach, perceiving theological debate as a dangerous deviation from true piety. Ibn Hanbal and his followers vehemently rejected Kalam, equating it with sin and viewing it as an intrusion of speculative reasoning into the sacred domain of faith. He famously declared,
“A person does not become from the people of the Sunnah until he leaves off debating, even if he debates to aid the Sunnah!” (Manāqib Al-Imām Ahmad, 1/210)
For Hanbal, the purity of faith rested on unwavering adherence to the Hadith and Sunnah, which he considered the ultimate authority in understanding matters of religion. From this sort of understanding, other notable figures like “Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated on the authority of ‘Isa ibn Yunus on the authority of al-Awza’i on the authority of Makhul, who said: “The Quran needs the Saunnah more than the Sunnah needs the Quran.” The same statement was related by al-Awza’i on the authority of Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, who was also reported to have said, “The Sunnah came to rule over the Qur’ān, it is not the Qur’ān that rules over the Sunnah.“
Hadith as a Tool of Power
Traditionalists reinforced their rejection of reason and logic by weaponizing Hadith as a polemic against intellectualism. A well-known Hadith recorded in Imam Malik’s Muwatta illustrates this principle. In it, Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib is questioned about the compensation for the injury of a woman’s fingers. When the responses appear inconsistent—ten camels for one finger, twenty for two, thirty for three, but then twenty again for four—the man challenges the logic behind the ruling, asking how a greater affliction could result in lesser compensation. Sa’id dismisses the question with a decisive response: “It is the Sunnah, my nephew.” (Muwatta Malik, 51:5780). This invocation of Sunnah epitomized the traditionalist rejection of rational inquiry, framing divine law as immutable and beyond human reasoning.
ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman said, “I asked Said ibn al Musayyab, ‘How much for the finger of a woman?’ He said, ‘Ten camels’ I said, ‘How much for two fingers?’ He said, ‘Twenty camels.’ I said, ‘How much for three?’ He said, ‘Thirty camels.’ I said, ‘How much for four?’ He said, ‘Twenty camels.’ I said, ‘When her wound is greater and her affliction stronger, is her blood-money then less?’ He said, ‘Are you an Iraqi?’ I said, ‘Rather, I am a scholar who seeks to verify things, or an ignorant man who seeks to learn.’ Said said, ‘It is the sunna, my nephew.’ “
وَحَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ سَعِيدَ بْنَ الْمُسَيَّبِ كَمْ فِي إِصْبَعِ الْمَرْأَةِ فَقَالَ عَشْرٌ مِنَ الإِبِلِ . فَقُلْتُ كَمْ فِي إِصْبَعَيْنِ قَالَ عِشْرُونَ مِنَ الإِبِلِ . فَقُلْتُ كَمْ فِي ثَلاَثٍ فَقَالَ ثَلاَثُونَ مِنَ الإِبِلِ . فَقُلْتُ كَمْ فِي أَرْبَعٍ قَالَ عِشْرُونَ مِنَ الإِبِلِ . فَقُلْتُ حِينَ عَظُمَ جُرْحُهَا وَاشْتَدَّتْ مُصِيبَتُهَا نَقَصَ عَقْلُهَا فَقَالَ سَعِيدٌ أَعِرَاقِيٌّ أَنْتَ فَقُلْتُ بَلْ عَالِمٌ مُتَثَبِّتٌ أَوْ جَاهِلٌ مُتَعَلِّمٌ . فَقَالَ سَعِيدٌ هِيَ السُّنَّةُ يَا ابْنَ أَخِي . قَالَ مَالِكٌ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا فِي أَصَابِعِ الْكَفِّ إِذَا قُطِعَتْ فَقَدْ تَمَّ عَقْلُهَا وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ خَمْسَ الأَصَابِعِ إِذَا قُطِعَتْ كَانَ عَقْلُهَا عَقْلَ الْكَفِّ خَمْسِينَ مِنَ الإِبِلِ فِي كُلِّ إِصْبَعٍ عَشَرَةٌ مِنَ الإِبِلِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَحِسَابُ الأَصَابِعِ ثَلاَثَةٌ وَثَلاَثُونَ دِينَارٍ وَثُلُثُ دِينَارٍ فِي كُلِّ أَنْمُلَةٍ وَهِيَ مِنَ الإِبِلِ ثَلاَثُ فَرَائِضَ وَثُلُثُ فَرِيضَةٍ .
Muwatta Malik
https://sunnah.com/urn/515780
By invoking such Hadith, traditionalists like Ibn Hanbal discredited Kalam and rationalist approaches, even preferring even weak Hadith over reason.
In the book “Misquoting Muhammad,” Jonathan Brown writes on page 44,
“Although Ibn Hanbal acknowledged that there were many Hadiths in his Musnad that suffered from some flaw or weakness in their Isnads, he felt they were all admissible in elaborating some area of the Shariah. He explained that, as long as a Hadith was supported by an Isnad reliable enough to show it was not a patent forgery, “then one was required to accept it and act accordingly to the Prophet’s words.’ ‘A flawed Hadith is preferable to me than a scholar’s opinion or Qiyas [analogical reasoning],’ he added. Muslims were, Ibn Hanbal reminded his students, commanded to take their religion from on high and not rely on the flawed faculty of reason.”
This strategy allowed Sunni orthodoxy to consolidate power by equating questioning with irreverence and dissent with heresy. In doing so, they silenced the intellectual dynamism that had defined the early Abbasid era.
The Shift Under al-Mutawakkil
The tension between rationalists and traditionalists reached its zenith during the reign of Caliph al-Mutawakkil (847–861 CE). Aligning himself decisively with Sunni Islam, al-Mutawakkil rejected the rationalist theology of the Mu‘tazilites and suppressed Kalam. His policies marked a pivotal moment in Islamic history, symbolizing the decline of intellectual plurality and the triumph of a rigidly enforced Sunni orthodoxy. By privileging tradition and repressing logic and reason, al-Mutawakkil curtailed the culture of debate and inquiry that had defined the earlier Abbasid era. Scholars who had thrived under his predecessors faced persecution, forcing many to seek refuge elsewhere.
The Rise of Sunni Orthodoxy and the Canonization of Hadith
After the rise of al-Mutawakkil, Sunni Islam consolidated itself as the perceived orthodoxy of the Muslim world, firmly establishing the Hadith and Sunnah as the foundational sources for Islamic law and theology, which can only be interpreted by the ulema (Sunni scholars). Sunni orthodoxy rejected the rationalist theology of the Mu’tazilites that was prevalent before its rise.
With the Abbasid government in line with Sunni Islam, this sect became the dominant theological framework and solidified its institutional authority. This shift marked a significant moment in Islamic history, as the reliance on Hadith literature became central to the average Muslim’s practice and belief, superseding alternative interpretations that had once been core to the Islamic intellectual landscape.
This era also fostered the compilation of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim—as well as the other collections of the Kutub al-Sittah—which eventually became canonized in the 10th century and adopted by the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali).
This is detailed in the book “Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim” by Jonathan Brown.
“For over two centuries after al-Bukhari’s [d. 870] and Muslim’s [d. 875] deaths, the study and collection of hadiths continued unabated. Al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s remarkable contribution came with their decision to compile books devoted only to hadiths they considered authentic (sahih). This act broke stridently with the practices of the transmission-based school and thus met with significant disapproval in the immediate wake of the authors’ careers.
“In the fourth/tenth century, however, the initial controversy surrounding the Sahihayn and their authors dissipated as a relatively small and focused network of scholars from the moderate Shafi’i tradition began appreciating the books’ utility. These scholars found the Sahihayn ideal vehicles for articulating their relationship to the Prophet’s normative legacy as well as standards against which to measure the strength of their own hadith collections. Employing the Sahihayn for these purposes required intimate familiarity with the two books and thus spurred an intensive study of the works and their authors’ methodologies. Simultaneously, between the end of the third/ninth and the middle of the fifth/eleventh century, the broader Muslim community began imagining a new level of authority for Prophetic traditions.” p. 6
“This ability of al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s collections to serve as an acknowledged convention for discussing the Prophet’s authenticated legacy would serve three important needs in the Sunni scholarly culture of the fifth/eleventh century. As the division between different schools of theology and law became more defined, scholars from the competing Shafi’i, Hanbali and MaÎiki schools quickly began employing the Sahihayn as a measure of authenticity in debates and polemics. By the early eighth/fourteenth century, even the hadith-wary Hanafi school could not avoid adopting this convention. With the increased division of labor between jurists and Hadith scholars in the mid-fifth/eleventh century, the Sahihayn also became an indispensable authoritative reference for jurists who lacked expertise in Hadith evaluation. Finally, al-Bukhari’s and Muslim’s works served as standards of excellence that shaped the science of Hadith criticism as scholars from the fifth/eleventh to the seventh/thirteenth century sought to systematize the study of the Prophet’s word.” p. 7
“Although occasional criticism of the Sahihayn continued even after their canonization at the dawn of the fifth/eleventh century, advocates of institutional Sunnism found it essential to protect the two works and the important roles they played. Beginning at the turn of the fourth/tenth century and climaxing in the mid-seventh/thirteenth, a set of predominately Shafi’i scholars created a canonical culture around the Sahihayn that recast the two books’ pre-canonical pasts as well as those of their authors according to the exigent contours of the canon.” p. 7
Sunni Islam, characterized by its emphasis on Hadith, Sunnah, and the consensus of scholars (ijma’), established itself as the prevailing form of Islam after centuries of theological, political, and legal development. As they gained political power under the Abbasids, Sunni authorities effectively silenced alternative interpretations that prioritized a direct engagement with the Qur’an without reliance on Hadith. Groups such as the ahl-al-Quran and Mu’tazilites, who championed a Quran-centric approach, were marginalized, killed, imprisoned, and persecuted, ensuring the consolidation of Sunni orthodoxy.
Quran: The Challenge to Sunni Orthodoxy
With the rise and consolidation of Sunni Islam, Hadith and Sunnah became so deeply integrated into the fabric of Islamic belief that they were eventually perceived as intrinsic to the faith. Individuals began to believe that the Hadith and Sunnah were formulated along with the Quran and as part of the messenger’s sacred duties, instead of the reality that they were collections of fabricated narratives attributed to the prophet without any credibility.
Over time, this perception hardened into an unquestioned narrative: that Hadith and Sunnah were universally recognized as orthodoxy during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad. This historical rewriting exemplifies the enduring power of interpretation as a tool of authority, where carefully constructed narratives eclipse historical reality. The success of Sunni Islam in embedding this narrative into collective memory demonstrates how power can cultivate historical amnesia, obscuring deeper truths in the process.
However, this enforced orthodoxy could only hold as long as the masses were kept in ignorance. As Muslims dispersed across the globe and gained access to textual materials independently—beyond the watchful eyes of the ulema—the cracks in this constructed foundation began to emerge. Scholars and intellectuals revisiting these narratives discovered that the interpretations propagated by Sunni authorities failed to hold up under scrutiny.
What had long been accepted as divine truth was revealed to be less a matter of theological necessity and more a construct designed to consolidate power and maintain control over the masses. These narratives, tailored to serve the political and institutional interests of the time, unraveled when subjected to critical examination. This awakening not only challenged the authority of those who had enshrined the Hadith and Sunnah as cornerstones of Islamic orthodoxy but also reignited a collective pursuit of truth, allowing previously suppressed realities to surface.
A particularly seismic shift came with the work of Dr. Rashad Khalifa, who placed the very authority of Hadith and Sunnah on trial. Khalifa brought forth direct arguments from the verses in the Qur’an that challenged the foundations of Sunni orthodoxy, demonstrating that the Qur’an designates no source of law beyond its own divine text. He argued that the elevation of Hadith and Sunnah was not a divinely ordained necessity but a human construct, perpetuated by corrupt interpreters (ulema) seeking to entrench their authority. Khalifa highlighted how this reliance on secondary sources had not only distorted the faith but also repelled countless individuals from the religion, effectively undermining the universality of the Quran’s message.
[6:112] We have permitted the enemies of every prophet—human and jinn devils—to inspire in each other fancy words (Hadith), in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.
[6:113] This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions.
وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِىٍّ عَدُوًّا شَيَـٰطِينَ ٱلْإِنسِ وَٱلْجِنِّ يُوحِى بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ ٱلْقَوْلِ غُرُورًا وَلَوْ شَآءَ رَبُّكَ مَا فَعَلُوهُ فَذَرْهُمْ وَمَا يَفْتَرُونَ
وَلِتَصْغَىٰٓ إِلَيْهِ أَفْـِٔدَةُ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ وَلِيَرْضَوْهُ وَلِيَقْتَرِفُوا۟ مَا هُم مُّقْتَرِفُونَ
[6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
أَفَغَيْرَ ٱللَّهِ أَبْتَغِى حَكَمًا وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ مُفَصَّلًا وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَاتَيْنَـٰهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُۥ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِٱلْحَقِّ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْمُمْتَرِينَ
وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَـٰتِهِۦ وَهُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ
[6:116] If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ
This historical trajectory reveals a profound lesson: interpretations shaped by authority may obscure the essence of truth, but truth itself remains immutable, waiting for the right conditions to emerge. When spaces for inquiry, reflection, and critical examination are allowed to flourish, suppressed truths inevitably rise to the surface, challenging entrenched orthodoxy and reaffirming the timeless reality that exists beyond the constructs of power.
The Enduring Lesson of Truth
Nietzsche’s insight compels us to recognize that power dictates prevailing interpretations, crafting orthodoxy to serve its own ends. Yet, as history reveals, truth—immutable and transcendent—cannot be reshaped by authority, no matter how pervasive its influence. The narratives forged by power may obscure reality for a time, but truth endures, waiting for the right circumstances to emerge and dismantle the falsehoods built upon human constructs. The historical trajectory of Sunni Islam illustrates this dynamic: interpretations shaped by political and religious authorities became entrenched as orthodoxy, silencing dissent and marginalizing alternative perspectives. Yet, as sincere truth seekers gained the freedom to critically examine these dogmas, the cracks in the orthodoxy began to show, and the suppressed truths of the Qur’an reemerged.
This resilience of truth, particularly when dogmas are subjected to scrutiny, underscores the profound importance of fostering spaces for inquiry and dialogue. When such conditions are allowed to flourish, the constructs of orthodoxy, no matter how entrenched, are exposed as fragile and ultimately unsustainable. Civilizations thrive not by clinging to the interpretations of the powerful but by embracing the timeless constancy of truth, which rises above the shifting sands of history. This lesson serves as both a warning and an inspiration: while power may dictate interpretation for a time, the enduring nature of truth ensures that falsehood cannot stand indefinitely.
[17:81] Proclaim, “The truth has prevailed, and falsehood has vanished; falsehood will inevitably vanish.”
وَقُلْ جَآءَ ٱلْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ ٱلْبَـٰطِلُ إِنَّ ٱلْبَـٰطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا
Related Articles:
Quran Talk Blog 